Our client was traveling home from a wine-pairing dinner party. Unfortunately, the headlights on her vehicle were not on and the Maple Bluff Police Department stopped her. The officer smelled an odor of intoxicants, and the client admitted to consuming wine during each course served at the meal. The officer had her perform field sobriety tests and then arrested her. The client agreed to take a breath test, which resulted in a 0.14 alcohol concentration. One of our previous clients recommended she hire Attorney Tim Verhoff to help. The case proceeded to trial during which Attorney Verhoff cross examined the arresting officer at length. At the conclusion of the trial, Attorney Verhoff argued to the judge that the arresting officer lacked a constitutional basis to request the client perform field sobriety tests, and as a result, all evidence gleaned from the tests should be excluded. The judge agreed and suppressed the evidence. He then found the client not guilty of the OWI and the PAC charges. On an interesting side note, another officer from the police department, who was not associated with the case, came to watch the entire trial. He was the arresting officer in a previous case for which Attorney Verhoff secured an acquittal. The officer told our lawyer he came because he wanted to see him "in action again" and that he learned a lot from the earlier case. He then paid our attorney one of the highest compliments a defense lawyer can receive. As he was consoling his defeated colleague, he said, "At least you now know who to call if you ever get into trouble."
Boating OWI/PAC Dismissed at 0.09
Our client was boating with friends on Lake Mendota during the July 4th holiday. While attending a local fireworks display, authorities stopped him for using an unauthorized sound device. Upon contact, law enforcement smelled the odor of intoxicants coming from our client, who admitted to consuming alcohol over several hours. The client agreed to submit to field sobriety tests. Although law enforcement observed sufficient clues to arrest him, he performed pretty well, particularly on the horizontal gaze nystagmus (eye) test. He then agreed to take a chemical test of his breath, which produced a 0.09 result. In meeting with the prosecution, Attorney Verhoff argued that there was no bad boating operation and the offense for which police made contact with our client was questionable. Our lawyer said the client was acting like any other good American when sounding a horn during the fireworks display. Coupled with the low test result and good performance on the field sobriety tests, our attorney suggested this case might be a hard one for the prosecution to prove at trial. Ultimately, the prosecution agreed with his assessment. Although our client was asked to complete a boater safety course, the District Attorney's Office agreed to dismiss both the boating OWI and PAC citations if the client agreed to be convicted of using an unnecessary boat whistle. He did and was thrilled with the outcome we achieved.
OWI Dismissed in Dane County
This case is an example of the huge difference a lawyer can make. Our client, who is an Illinois resident, was stopped and arrested for an OWI-1st Offense. He refused to take field sobriety tests and refused to take the chemical test of his breath. He was also given a citation for improper refusal. Unfortunately, the client did not realize he had to file a request for a hearing on the refusal within ten days, and he defaulted on that charge before our office got involved.
The client did appear without a lawyer for a court date on the OWI charge. By happenstance, Attorney Verhoff was present at this hearing and overheard the conversation the client was having with a representative from the District Attorney's Office. The person from the DA's Office told the client there was nothing they could do about the OWI and he could either plead to it or have a trial. The client was on the verge of pleading to the OWI when Attorney Verhoff intervened. Our attorney informed the (now) client that entering a plea to the OWI would have catastrophic consequences on his Illinois license. Our attorney advised him to fight the OWI. Taking our advice, the client decided to hire our firm to help. Attorney Verhoff immediately had the case set for trial. In speaking with the prosecutor assigned to the case prior to trial, Attorney Verhoff explained to him the significant consequences for an OWI conviction in Illinois. He argued this was unduly punitive and unnecessary given the conviction that previously occurred in the refusal. He also pointed out some of the proof problems the prosecutor might have in the OWI case. On the day of trial, the prosecutor finally gave up on the OWI case and agreed to dismiss it. Although the client must still deal with the impact of the refusal conviction, he was spared years worth licensing headaches in Illinois due to the OWI dismissal.
OWI 1st- client found not guilty at trial
People who question whether or not they need a lawyer on an OWI should read this blog.
Our client initially was going to do the case without counsel. She wanted to do that because her test result was a .079 and she thought the government would simply cave in because of the test being below the legal limit. She was wrong. The government chose to pursue the case with the evidence they had. They told her that they would not amend or dismiss the charges.
Finally, she reached out to Corey Chirafisi for help. The trial was only about 2 weeks away when she hired the firm, however, we were able to review the evidence and be prepared even on the short notice.
The officer testified and at the conclusion of his testimony, the court made the finding that the government did not meet their burden of proof and found the client not guilty.
OWI 3rd/PAC Shawano County- charges amended to OWI 1st
Our client was arrested for OWI 3rd with a blood alcohol concentration of .20. Our client was very concerned about serving a jail sentence, which was valid as their case was pending in Shawano County, a county that is usually very hard on drunk driving cases.
What we were able to do is collaterally attack the client's 2nd offense OWI from the early 1990's. The prosecutor actually agreed that he couldn't establish the client waived his rights to counsel and stipulated to our motion. With that stipulation in place, the client's 3rd offense became a 1st offense. No jail, minimum fine and minimum revocation. Our client got the exact result he had hoped for.
Felony Domestic Dismissed in Marathon County
Many people can picture this situation. Our client and his wife were stayed at a hotel in Wausau for a youth sporting event. After the games that day, many of the parents spent the night consuming alcohol. It was during this time our client and his wife got into a verbal argument. As she approached him, he grabbed her by the arms and held her down on the bed to prevent her from hitting him. Another parent heard the fight and called police.
Our client was arrested and prosecutors charged him with a felony for false imprisonment, as well as a misdemeanor disorderly conduct. The client hired Attorney Verhoff upon the advice of a local prosecutor. Attorney Verhoff engaged with the assistant district attorney in Marathon County and explained that he believed he could defend the case arguing self-defense. He also provided significant background to the prosecutor about the client. Prior to trial, the district attorney agreed. He extended an offer too good to refuse. He agreed to dismiss the felony and have the client participate in a deferred prosecution agreement on misdemeanor disorderly conduct. Provided our client stays out of trouble for the next year, the remaining charge will be reduced to a non-criminal ordinance violation, the legal equivalent of a parking ticket, and pay a $5.00 forfeiture. As an avid hunter, our client was thrilled to avoid a felony conviction or conviction for a domestic criminal offense, which would have resulted in the loss of his firearm rights.
All Around Victory: OWI Reduced to Reckless, DC and Refusal Dismissed
Law enforcement stopped our client for what is termed a "rolling domestic." He and his girlfriend were having an argument in the car, and she called police. Upon arrival, law enforcement pulled him over and asked him to step out of the car. The police began questioning the client about what happened. Officers also smelled an odor of intoxicants, and the client admitted to consuming alcohol at dinner. Authorities then asked him to submit to field sobriety tests, but he refused. He also refused to submit to a chemical analysis of his breath.
The client was arrested on a criminal charge of disorderly conduct, an OWI-first and the refusal to agree to a chemical analysis of his breath. Attorney Verhoff spoke with prosecutors at the time of charging, and they agreed not to charge a criminal offense. Instead, the District Attorney issue an ordinance violation on the disorderly conduct. As the case unfolded, our attorney was able to convince the prosecution to amend the OWI charge to a citation for reckless driving, dismiss the refusal, and dismiss the disorderly conduct citation. In the end, the client paid a modest fine on the reckless driving, but avoid a conviction for an OWI and the refusal, as well as a criminal charge, and the accompanying license implications and associated fines.
Reckless Child Abuse- Found Not Guilty at Trial
Our client, a middle school principal, was charged with child abuse. A conviction of this offense would not only cause him to lose his job, but as a convicted felon, he would never be able to work with kids again. Our client made a potentially career saving decision in hiring Chirafisi & Verhoff to represent him in this matter.
The principal was charged with reckless child abuse for washing a child's hand (which had a profanity on it) with gum remover. The child suffered a chemical burn and the parents called the police.
The facts were not in dispute in this case; the only question was whether the client acted recklessly, or if the burn was an accident? This case had drawn considerable attention in the community because of the client's job. Knowing this, a very helpful thing we did on this case was to request that the court send out specific jury questionnaires to gauge the prospective jury members' opinions about the case.
The jury selection ended up taking an entire day--something that is very rare. However, the questionnaires made it much easier to get the people that we believed would be helpful hearing the case onto the jury.
The case was tried in two days and in the end, the client was found not guilty in approximately 5-10 minutes.
The reaction of the jury really says it all in the video linked below:
https://wxow.com/news/top-stories/2018/08/23/amundson-found-not-guilty-of-child-abuse/
Homicide OWI Charge Declined
Law enforcement referred to prosecutors potential criminal charges of homicide by intoxicated use of a motor vehicle after our client crashed his car while drinking and driving. In a tragic twist, a passerby who stopped to assist the client after the crash was killed. Attorney Verhoff spoke with prosecutors prior to charges being issued and argued that while our client was impaired while driving and should be held accountable for those actions, he did not directly cause the death of the other person. If charged criminally, this would leave open a statutory defense to the charge. Prosecutors ultimately agreed. Although the client was charged and convicted of OWI-1st Offense, the prosecution declined to file the homicide charge.
Another Felony Stalking Case Reduced
In this Dane County case, the client was charged with stalking a woman with whom he had a previous relationship. Although he never made any threats to her or took any action toward her, he did repeatedly call her, text her, and often came to her residence. But our attorney had a very strong card to play, evidence that the complaining witness sent texts to our client in the weeks leading up to his arrest. Ultimately our attorneys brokered a deal with the prosecution in which the client agreed to plead to a lesser charge of disorderly conduct. He also agreed to be supervised on probation for one year, but he was not required to serve any jail time.
Felony Charge of Maintaining A Drug Dwelling Dismissed
Our client and his housemates were charged with maintaining a drug trafficking dwelling in Rock County after law enforcement raided their home. Our attorneys reviewed the search warrant and found problems with certain aspects that allowed us to file a motion to challenge the validity of the warrant. In speaking with prosecutors in advance of the hearing on the motion to challenge the search warrant, the prosecution made an offer to dismiss the felony and have the client plead to a simple possession of marijuana with expungement of the case after one year of probation. The client, who accepted this offer, was very pleased with the outcome.
Gun Charge Dismissed At Initial Appearance
A Dane County court commissioner had no choice but to dismiss a criminal charge of going armed while intoxicated against our client at a recent initial appearance. The client, who was pulled over for a traffic violation, was initially charged with a criminal offense for having a firearm in her possession while she was intoxicated. Attorney Verhoff attended the first hearing and received a copy of the charging document called the criminal complaint. He immediately noticed the complaint failed to allege that the firearm was loaded at the time our client possessed it. This is an element of the criminal charge. Our attorney moved to dismiss the complaint and charge based on the prosecution's failure to sufficiently allege all elements of a crime in the charging document. Given the defect in the complaint, the court commissioner dismissed the case.
OWI/PAC Verdict: Not Guilty, 0.147 Alcohol Concentration
A Grant County jury recently returned not guilty verdicts on charges of OWI-2nd and PAC-2nd, acquitting our client of all counts. In November 2017, a Grant County Sheriff's Deputy stopped our client for speeding and for what he described as an unsafe passing of another vehicle. After field sobriety tests, the client was arrested and agreed to submit to a blood test, which resulted in a reported value of 0.147. Our office litigated the case at every turn, having an administrative review hearing and a motion hearing to suppress evidence. This gave Attorney Verhoff several opportunities to question the deputy before trial, which proved instrumental in front of the jury. At trial, Attorney Verhoff argued the client's driving, as seen on video, was not as poor as the deputy portrayed in his report. He also argued the client's performance on the field sobriety tests was pretty good, particularly when compared to the high blood test results. He even got the deputy to testify under oath that the client did "surprisingly well" on field sobriety tests, given how high his blood test was. Attorney Verhoff suggested the disparity between the field sobriety tests and the blood test results meant something wasn't right with the case. And that something was a problem with the collection of our client's blood. During the cross examination of those involved in the blood collection and testing, our attorney raised these issues. Then, with the final witness in the case, Attorney Verhoff called an expert who offered an opinion on the blood collection and testing in this case and how it likely corrupted the test results. And the ultimate result: A not guilty verdict!
OWI 1st. .09 accident/hit and run- Dane County
Our client was driving at bar time on a busy street in downtown Madison. He was involved in an accident for sideswiping another vehicle and then leaving the scene. When police made contact with him, he was not very cooperative and was charged with multiple offenses, including OWI/PAC and a criminal charge of Hit and Run.
Chirafisi & Verhoff got involved in the case and started with the Hit and Run charge. We met with the prosecutor prior to the court appearance and were able to convince the prosecutor not to charge the Hit and Run.
Next was the OWI charge. The accident did pose a problem (as it usually does) and being over the legal limit compounded the accident.
As the matter closed in for trial, we found an issue with the manner that the breath test was conducted. We decided to hold this issue back and not disclose it to the other side until we had an opportunity to cross examination the breath test operator. It turns out that we never had the opportunity to do so because the prosecutor called us and agreed to amend the charge to reckless driving. At the end of the day, the hit and run disappeared and so did the OWI.
OWI 1st- accident .22- charge amended to reckless driving
Our client was involved in an accident on the interstate with a semi trailer. The trooper who arrived on the scene believed that, based on the odor of intoxicants, accident and bloodshot eyes, the client was intoxicated. Our client retained our firm because Chirafisi & Verhoff had previously represented her boyfriend. (His OWI charge was also amended due to our firm’s work on his case.)
We filed two motions in this case: first, a motion challenging the basis for conducting field sobriety tests. The second motion involved the distance in which the client was moved to conduct field sobriety tests.
On the morning of the motion hearing, the state voiced concern about whether or not they would be successful in defending the motions. The state offered our client a reckless driving charge to resolve the case. The client was thrilled with the result!
3 more outstanding results- Felony dismissed at preliminary hearing
The first case is out of Dane County: a felony battery. The client was charged with striking a person on a downtown Madison street. That person fell down, struck their head and lost consciousness. The Dane County DA's office has a policy of not attempting to resolve cases before preliminary hearings. We here at Chirafisi & Verhoff have a policy of not waiving preliminary hearings for no reason.
At the preliminary hearing, the officer testified to our client's version as to what had occurred. The prosecutor never asked the officer about any other version of what had happened. The Court, armed with only the version set forth by our client, found that the state had not established probable cause and the felony was dismissed.
More soon regarding out two other recent outstanding case results...
Injunction Petition Denied
A Dane County judge denied a domestic abuse injunction filed against one of our clients after Attorney Verhoff argued the evidence did not merit a finding that the client engaged in domestic abuse against the petitioner. He also argued that, given the timing of the filing, it appeared the petitioner was attempting to use the injunction as leverage in a family court case where child placement was an issue. At the conclusion of evidence, the judge agreed with our attorney's argument but went a step further. The judge stated that event if he believed the client engaged in an act that constituted domestic abuse he would still have denied the petition under the circumstances in light of Attorney Verhoff's argument.
Felony OWI Reduced to Misdemeanor
Our client was arrested and charged with a felony OWI in Dane County. Upon review of the client's driving abstract, Attorney Verhoff recognized one of the prior convictions upon which the prosecution was relying as a basis for counting prior convictions could not be used in the pending case. This was because the earlier conviction transpired in a municipal court that did not have proper jurisdiction over the case. Based on our lawyer's challenge to the use of the prior conviction from municipal court, prosecutors from the Dane County District Attorney's Office were forced to reduce the pending charge from a felony to a misdemeanor. Spared a felony conviction, the client was thrilled.
Substantial Battery- Acquittal at trial
Our client was charged in Jefferson County with Substantial Battery for a fight that ended with the complaining witness suffering a skull fracture. Our defense at trial was self-defense. With the help of investigators, we had an opportunity to interview all witnesses who really assisted in setting up the defense. When all was said and done, the jury was out 40 minutes before returning a not guilty verdict.
OWI/PAC .17 Amended to Reckless Driving
This case comes out of a stop in Columbia County. Our client was pulled over by the State Patrol for illegal tinting of their windows and no front license plate. The trooper smelled the odor of intoxicants and the client admitted to having consumed a couple of drinks earlier in the evening.
Our client was put through field sobriety tests and was arrested for an OWI. This is the point where the case turned, the client had a prior OWI conviction which was more than 10 years ago. That would make this OWI charge another first offense; however, the trooper misread the teletype and repeatedly informed the client that this was a 2nd offense and a blood test was required.
Attorney Corey Chirafisi filed a motion challenging the defendant's consent to the test because the client was misinformed regarding what he was being charged with (2nd offense vs. 1st offense). The parties had a lengthy consented hearing with multiple sets of briefs filed. Prior to the Court deciding the issue, the government offered to amend the charge from an OWI to Reckless Driving. It was the outcome the client was hoping for all along. The OWI conviction would have triggered the IID requirement based on it being the client's 2nd offense (in lifetime) and the test result was above the 0.15 threshold. Very happy client.